Wookieepedia:Featured article reviews/Reaper (Executor-class)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Featured article that passed review. Please do not modify it.

Reaper (Executor-class)

• Requested By: Imperators II
• Date Requested: 09:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Date Archived: 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Object

• From looking at the Lusankya/Legends article and the more reliable Executor/Legends article, it seems like this article is not adequately reflecting the fact that the Lusankya was also a good contender for being the "second" Executor-class vessel being constructed by the Empire, being built at the same time as the Executor. Even Warfare itself brings up the existence of the Lusankya (the Executor II), albeit regrettably leaving its relation to the rest of the class vague. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The contradiction has been noted in the bts. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • To be honest I think it should be possible to integrate both facts as canonical. Sources seem to indicate that Lusankya was a completely secret project (which also served to obfuscate the Executor's true nature even more, I suspect), while the others seem to have been relatively more public knowledge. Imperators II^(Talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
      • How can both facts be canonical? Either the Reaper was the second Executor-class vessel constructed or it wasn't. Are you implying that the Reaper was actually the third ship, but the second publicly known vessel? ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 20:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
        • I guess that would indeed be the best way to reconciliate both of those statements, yes. Imperators II^(Talk) 20:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
          • How does it look now? ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 20:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Also your edit seems to have introduced a reference error, please check that. Imperators II^(Talk) 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Fixed. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 20:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• The article has some redundant linking, plus the recent additions should be checked thoroughly for missing links as well.
  • Better? Samonic ^(Talk) 12:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm seeing some BBY/ABY dates at least in the navbox that should get proper referencing.
  • They're all referenced; what more is needed? Cade Calrayn 17:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Same as always, those ABY dates shouldn't be sourced straight to the novels. Imperators II^(Talk) 17:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
      • Expanded date notes OOM 224 (he/him) 16:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Illustrator for the Atlas depiction should be noted. Imperators II^(Talk) 12:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. Samonic ^(Talk) 12:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately that book doesn't do a case-by-case image attribution to the several artists who worked on it, so that should be refined. Imperators II^(Talk) 12:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
      • Adjusted. Samonic ^(Talk) 13:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Let's see some IU dating in the "Under Ardus Kaine" section. Imperators II^(Talk) 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Better? —Tomotron^{Sith Council} 16:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Both the image and the quote in the "Under Ardus Kaine" subsection are of events that occurred during the timeframe covered in the subsequent subsection Fan26 (Talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed by swapping them. —Tomotron^{Sith Council} 16:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Marking per part of March's paperwork.—spookywilloww^talk 14:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Vote to retain Featured status

1. Imperators II^(Talk) 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
2. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 18:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
3. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Vote to strip Featured status